BEALE v. WETZEL et al

Filing 231

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 216 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by THOMAS BEALE. Details more fully stated in the opinion. An Appropriate order follows. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 7/28/21. (cjo)

Case 1:13-cv-00015-JFC Document 231 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS BEALE,
Plaintiff,

v.
JOHN WETZEL, Secretary of
Corrections, PA Department of
Corrections, et. al.,

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-15
)
) JUDGE JOY FLOWERS CONTI
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the court is a motion to enforce settlement agreement (ECF No. 216) filed
by pro se plaintiff Thomas Beale (“Beale”), currently an inmate at SCI-Chester. Defendants
(collectively, Department of Corrections (“DOC”)), initially filed a response in opposition to the
motion (ECF No. 218). At a hearing on July 27, 2021, counsel for the DOC conceded that the
motion should be granted.

Procedural History
Beale contends that the DOC wrongfully removed his single-cell (or Z-code) status. The
court held an evidentiary hearing on Beale’s motion on May 26, 2021. Defendants submitted for
in camera review certain Vote Sheets. The hearing was scheduled to resume on July 21, 2021,
but Beale reported he was not prepared to proceed. Beale represented to the court that there was
another inmate in his cell. The court issued a preliminary injunction order and opinion (ECF
Nos. 228, 229), directing that Beale be maintained in single-cell status until the hearing resumed

Case 1:13-cv-00015-JFC Document 231 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 4

on July 27, 2021. Based upon the DOC’s concession that it will apply the settlement agreement
as interpreted in the preliminary injunction order, that order will be converted to a permanent
injunction.

Discussion
Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. As a threshold matter, Beale must establish
the two “most critical” factors: likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Reilly v.
City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017). If these “gateway factors” are satisfied, the
court considers the third and fourth factors: the potential for harm to others if relief is granted,
and whether the public interest favors injunctive relief. Id. at 176, 179. Injunctive relief is
warranted because, after review of the documents submitted by the parties, the testimony at the
initial hearing, and the DOC’s concession, the court finds that Beale has established success on
the merits, Beale would be irreparably harmed in the absence of relief, defendants would not be
harmed, and entry of the order is consistent with public policy.
1. Success on the merits
Beale is seeking to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement which resolved Civil
Action No. 13-15. This court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. As relevant to the
pending dispute, under the terms of the agreement, “the Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
agrees that Plaintiff will be given single cell status for one year, and the single-cell status will
continue for subsequent one-year periods thereafter, subject to annual review at the end of
each one-year period, at which time DOC may revoke the single-cell status based on a good
faith determination of Plaintiff’s behavior/rule compliance and the Department’s
penological needs.” (ECF No. 204-1 at 2-3) (emphasis added).

Case 1:13-cv-00015-JFC Document 231 Filed 07/28/21 Page 3 of 4

In other words, the single-cell status must remain in effect unless the DOC articulates a
valid basis to remove it. At the July 27, 2021 hearing, DOC counsel represented that no basis
currently exists to remove Beale’s single-cell status. The Vote Sheets reflect a misperception by
DOC personnel that the single-cell status needed to be in effect for only one year. The Vote
Sheets do not point to any misbehavior or lack of rule compliance by Beale and they do not point
to a change in the department’s penological needs. In sum, defendants breached the settlement
agreement by revoking his single-cell status.
To be clear, the DOC retains the right, under the terms of the parties’ settlement
agreement, to conduct annual reviews of Beale’s single-cell status. That status may only be
revoked if the persons involved in the Annual Review of Z-code status, acting in good faith,
articulate misbehavior or lack of rule compliance by Beale or a change in the DOC’s penological
needs. Defense counsel shall ensure that all persons involved in Annual Review of Beale’s Zcode status are familiar with the terms of this opinion and permanent injunction order. If Beale’s
single-cell status is revoked, he retains the right to challenge that action for lack of good faith.
2. Irreparable harm
The court accepts Beale’s representation, supported by multiple declarations submitted to
the court, that he has been forced to have another inmate in his cell. Beale further reports that
the inmates assigned to his cell have not been vaccinated for the Covid-19 virus. The court finds
that the failure to maintain Beale in single-cell status constitutes irreparable harm.
3. Harm to defendants or others
The court perceives no harm to defendants or others that may arise from compliance with
this order. Defendants did not articulate any possible harm and represented they would comply
with the settlement agreement, as interpreted by the court. The relief granted is narrowly

Case 1:13-cv-00015-JFC Document 231 Filed 07/28/21 Page 4 of 4

tailored, i.e., enforcement of Beale’s contractual right to single-cell status as set forth in the
settlement agreement.
4. Public policy
Requiring the DOC to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement it reached with
Beale is consistent with public policy.
5. Bond
The bond requirement, to the extent it is applicable to a permanent injunction, is waived.
Beale would suffer a hardship because, as an incarcerated inmate, he does not have the financial
ability to post a bond, and there will be no possible economic lost, costs or damages imposed on
the DOC associated with this injunctive relief. Marland v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 624, 644
(E.D. Pa. 2020); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The DOC did not request bond.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Dated: July 28, 2021

/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Senior United States District Judge